Skip to content


C. Lakshmana Iyer Vs. Pubbi Setti Sethamma and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectCriminal
CourtChennai High Court
Decided On
Reported in(1964)1MLJ362
AppellantC. Lakshmana Iyer
RespondentPubbi Setti Sethamma and anr.
Cases ReferredSubramaia Kandar v. Ramaswami Kandar
Excerpt:
- .....the petitioner under sections 352, 448, 457, 427, 380, 506 and 120-b of the indian penal code. the learned magistrate examined in the case six witnesses and marked eight documents on the side of the petitioner and two documents on the side of the accused and came to the conclusion that sufficient material had not been furnished before him to justify a charge in respect of any of the offences against the accused. against that order, the petitioner filed a revision petition in this court.3. the case was on the list for some days, and when it came up for hearing, the petitioner was absent and had no counsel to represent him. in the circumstances. i looked into the papers and disposed of the case on merits holding that there was no justification to interfere with the order of discharge.....
Judgment:
ORDER

P. Kunhamed Kutti, J.

1. This is a Petition filed by the petitioner in Crl. R.C. No. 1506 of 1962 on the file of this Court, under Sections 439 and 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for the Court, under Section 439 and 561-A of the Criminal Procedure Code for restoration to file of the said Crl. R.C. No. 1506 of 1962 dismissed by me on 12th November, 1963

2. That was Revision Case filed by the petitioner against the order of the learned Third Presidency, Magistrate; Saidapet, discharging the accused in a complaint filed by the petitioner under Sections 352, 448, 457, 427, 380, 506 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code. The learned Magistrate examined in the case six witnesses and marked eight documents on the side of the petitioner and two documents on the side of the accused and came to the conclusion that sufficient material had not been furnished before him to justify a charge in respect of any of the offences against the accused. Against that order, the petitioner filed a Revision Petition in this Court.

3. The case was on the list for some days, and when it came up for hearing, the petitioner was absent and had no Counsel to represent him. In the circumstances. I looked into the papers and disposed of the case on merits holding that there was no justification to interfere with the order of discharge passed by the learned Magistrate.

4. Since the disposal was on merits, there is no reason to set it aside on the ground it was an ex pare disposal. This view has been consistently held by this Court in. Ranga Row v. Emperor 1912 Cri. L.J. 710, and in Subramaia Kandar v. Ramaswami Kandar : (1948)1MLJ406 . In the last mentioned case Govinda Menon, J., held that a Revision dismissed for default of appearance could not be restored to file In Anthony Doss, In re (1963) M.L.J.249, Sadasivam, J., had to consider a similar cases, where a Criminal Revision Petition was dismissed on. merits, when the petitioner and his Advocate were absent at the hearing. The learned Judge held that the petition could not be restored nor could the order be reviewed. He also observed that the High Court had no inherent power to alter or review its own judgment in a Criminal Case once it had been pronounced and signed. In the circumstances, it seems to me that there is no justification to set aside the order passed by me on merits in this case.

5. The petition is, therefore, dismissed.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //